Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?)

From: Vadim Nasardinov <vadimn(at)redhat(dot)com>
To: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?)
Date: 2005-01-14 22:27:02
Message-ID: 200501141727.02241@vadim.nasardinov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc
On Friday 14 January 2005 17:12, Dave Cramer wrote:
> I see no point in either of these as the solution is simple... Don't
> ignore errors.

This is a misrepresentation of the other side's argument.

I mentioned this thread earlier in this discussion:
  http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2004-03/threads.php#00067

Consider, in particular,
  http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2004-03/msg00070.php

The guy is most emphatically _not_ ignoring errors.  Wouldn't you
agree?

The point of the solutions that Oliver proposed is not hard to see.  I
can write code that works unchanged with Oracle, Sybase, DB2,
MySQL/InnoDB, Firebird and god knows what else.  As soon as I throw
PostgreSQL into the mix, I need to handle a radically different
transaction semantics all of a sudden.  Oliver's proposal obviates the
need for special-casing PostgreSQL in my application code, albeit
admittedly at the expense of incurring a measurable performance hit.
Which is fine with me, as long as I'm informed of the tradeoff.

YMMV.

In response to

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: j.random.programmerDate: 2005-01-14 23:01:42
Subject: Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?) -- commit fails silently
Previous:From: Dave CramerDate: 2005-01-14 22:12:16
Subject: Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group